Apple doesn’t want India’s government to muddle iPhone’s look

“Apple is making serious moves to begin manufacturing some of its iPhones in India, but first the tech giant wants a concession from the Indian government to be exempt from following the country’s product labeling regulations,” Ben Sin reports for Forbes.

“In India, all products, from food to gadgets, are required by law to have detailed packaging information stating the name and address of the importer, date of packaging, and maximum retail price, directly on the product. This, Apple argues, would ruin the look of its minimalist design aesthetics,” Sin reports. “The Cupertino company has filed a formal request to India’s Department of Revenue and Department of Electronics and Information Technology requesting to be excluded from the rule. The company is hoping to list all of that details in the software instead.”

“It’s worth noting that Apple does indeed print some US government regulated information on the back of iPhones/iPads — you know, the part with the ‘Designed in California, Made in China’ bit — but just the absolute bare minimum,” Sin reports. “It’s not known whether India’s government will concede to Apple’s demands (which also includes tax concessions)…”

MacDailyNews Take: In the U.S., our Jet Black iPhone 7 Plus units barely have anything noticeable on the back besides the Apple logo and “iPhone.” You just know that, besides the camera and the flash, Jony would rather have nothing but the logo on the back.

I think the point of labeling the outside is so you don’t have to turn on devices or open transparent packaging in order to glean those required-by-law details it may just be a compromise Apple has to deal with to do business in India.

Actually for all products, these information has to be on the packaging, not necessarily on the product itself. For example, on food products such as cookies, you can only write such information on the packaging. This has been in place for many decades, for al the products (by law), and it will be very difficult for the government to make an exception for one company and it would not be seem right for any company to ask government to make such exception.